If We Only Spent All the Money, Then Everyone Would Be Prosperous!

On the front of today's New York Timesbusiness section is a remarkable—or should I say remarkably unremarkable—news articlewhose entire premise, unchallenged in the course of 1,341 words and input from 10 sources, is that more government spending is a very good thing because it leads to more government jobs and therefore helps the economy. Hooray!

If you think I am being unfair in this characterization, consider the headline: "Government Spending, Edging Up, Is a Stimulus." Or the headline on the jump page inside: "Rebound in Government Spending Starts to Aid Economy After Years of Cuts." Or the headline on the associated chart: "A Small But Important Lift." Or the blurb: "The public sector is once again adding to prosperity." Before consuming some counter-factual questions, enjoy the celebratory sounds of friction-free assumptions and loosening belts:

NAPLES, Fla. — For a long stretch, government spending cutbacks at all levels were a substantial drag on economic growth. Now, finally, relief is in sight. For the first time since 2011, local, state and federal governments are providing a small but significant increase to prosperity. […]

And so on a recent windswept afternoon, John Lynch, armed with a police radio and a giant net, stood along a fishing pier in Naples, on guard for pelicans that might become entangled in fishing lines.

"That's my job, to try and get them to safety," said Mr. Lynch, a retired banker with a snowy beard whose uniform was a fisherman's cap and shorts. Mr. Lynch is one of the latest additions to the city's payroll. His is the kind of government job this Gulf Coast town never would have even contemplated during the recession. […]

"This new revenue, the increase in the economy, the increase in G.D.P. —everything is looking good," [said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution]. "It's releasing pressure to be fiscally restrained." […]

The Naples Pier outreach assistant job was a minor item in the $32.9 million budget, but an important symbol that times were flush again. […]

The Naples Fire­Rescue Department just bought two new emergency vehicles worth $196,000 each. One of the boxy red trucks arrived last month, just in time to be steered gingerly down the route of the city's annual Christmas parade, where palm trees were adorned in white holiday lights and children darted for candy tossed from holiday­themed floats.

It is an event so precious to locals that the city kept it going during the downturn, said John F. Sorey III, mayor of Naples.

2) Between the time of Bill Clinton's last submitted budget of $1.8 trillion, and Barack Obama's first submitted budget of $3.6 trillion, did the average American become more or less prosperous?

3) The United States after World War II, Canada in the 1990s, and Australia in the 1980s all became significantly more prosperous—despite ample warnings to the contrary—after cutting, not increasing, government spending. Wha' happen?

4) Is there a ceiling on what percentage of GDP the government should account for, and if so why should there be one, and where should it be?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

And to think that it was only like three or four days ago that the big lefty talking point all over the place was about how spending as a share of GDP has gone down in recent years, and how Obama and the democrats deserved all the credit for this (even though it was caused entirely by total budgetary gridlock between the house and the senate).

Austerity in Euroland has resulted in spending, as a percentage of GDP, increasing from about 42.5% to around 47.5%. The “austerity” has come in the form of higher taxes which — as you would expect — decreases economic activity, thereby changing the above mentioned ratio between government spending and GDP. Thus, Europe is in recession. Obviously (?) they need to spend more.

Does anyone believe the economy would be better here if government spending was 75% of GDP? Yup! There are some intellectuals who believe that to be desirable.

My brother is a public high school English teacher and I had lunch with him and one of his fellow teachers, a new hire, a while back. His coworker was going on with the whole austerity, cut to the bone, those fucking Tea Partiers and Rethuglicans, etc., spiel–this was one of those amusing situations where people assuming that because of my company that I’m a fellow traveler.

It became blatantly obvious to me within minutes that he’d chosen his career path so that he’d have a captive audience to lecture to and punish/reward based on how they responded to his political biases.

This is also what happened in every social sci or humanities class I ever took in college.

Smart people debate things with those they disagree with. Leftists assume they already won the debate and everyone who isn’t a convicted Nazi war criminal surely already agrees with them on everything.

I’ve spent time in Naples,hell,their rich.They don’t need hand outs! That whole area is swimming in cash,fuck them,Many are rich old folks,and they can’t driver for shit.The keys in that area are rolling in cash!

I’m pretty sure the subsidies to the poor in ACA overwhelm the increased spending of the rich. We’ll see if that’s the case if the insurance companies come begging for a bailout or a rewrite of the legislation.

Increased health care demand would matter more if the supply were allowed to grow to compensate. It’s not allowed to grow to meet demand so any increase in spending has minimal effect on economic growth.

IMO, government spending does add to GDP. It’s just that the taxation required for that spending reduces GDP (probably by more than it’s increased). Hence, borrowing. But, the borrowed money must be paid back, so interest becomes a reduction in GDP. (Is interest on the debt calculated in the official GDP?) Either way, the increase in GDP is offset by a reduction in the form of taxes or paying interest on the debt.

It all makes sense when you realize it’s not their theory, it’s their religion. The “fact” that government spending makes us all more prosperous is their dogma, and will not be slain on the altar of truth…

The people who received all the money are happy, most of the people who coughed up the money live somewhere else, and a new round is coming up soon to enrich the same folks who got the money in previous rounds in the name of fixing the same problems.

See? Magical isn’t it?

Remember, robbing Peter to pay Paul will get you Paul’s vote, and costs you nothing if Peter does not live in your district!

Funny how liberal politicians love to crow about some minor, cronyist tax cut while simultaneously doing jack shit to help the average person. It’s almost like they know their policies are harmful but double down on them anyway.

It’s true. My Marxist retired CA college professor Aunt finally admitted that taxation is not about revenue generation. It is about redistribution and punishing certain segments of the population. And hurting ‘big corporations’.

my co-worker’s step-sister makes $74 an hour on the computer . She has been fired from work for nine months but last month her paycheck was $16572 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read Full Report………… ????? http://www.netjob70.com

If you think I am being unfair in this characterization, consider the headline: “Government Spending, Edging Up, Is a Stimulus.” Or the headline on the jump page inside: “Rebound in Government Spending Starts to Aid Economy After Years of Cuts.” Or the headline on the associated chart: “A Small But Important Lift.” Or the blurb: “The public sector is once again adding to prosperity.”

my neighbor’s step-aunt makes $80 an hour on the internet . She has been laid off for five months but last month her payment was $12901 just working on the internet for a few hours. website here…….. ???????? http://www.paygazette.com

my co-worker’s step-mother makes $82 /hour on the laptop . She has been fired from work for ten months but last month her pay was $13096 just working on the laptop for a few hours. check here…….. ?????http://www.netjob70.com

my co-worker’s step-mother makes $82 /hour on the laptop . She has been fired from work for ten months but last month her pay was $13096 just working on the laptop for a few hours. check here…….. ?????http://www.netjob70.com

i buy almost everything except food and clothing from online auctions most people aren’t aware of the almost I unbelievable deals that they can get from online auction sites the site that has the best deals is…… http://www.Work4Hour.Com

“That’s my job, to try and get them to safety,” said Mr. Lynch, a retired banker with a snowy beard whose uniform was a fisherman’s cap and shorts. Mr. Lynch is one of the latest additions to the city’s payroll. His is the kind of government job this Gulf Coast town never would have even contemplated during the recession.

As much as I think this is an admirable thing to do, maybe we could manage to save pelicans without having the job financed by a taxpayer shakedown with all the inherent corruptions that are entailed by the application of state power.

I love how the left bastardizes Keynes. Even Hayek, who was good friends with Keynes, noticed this:

“I regard him as a real genius, but not as a great economist you know… not a very consistent or logical thinker; and he might have developed in almost any direction; the only thing I am sure is that he would have disapproved of what his pupils made of his doctrines.”

The freakishly cheap gas prices (Was $2.30 per gallon in some places in LA, which is unheard of) and a respectable rebound in employment rate, construction and housing market is helping the economy. Holiday spending and hiring was up this year. What does most of that have to do with government spending? Oil prices fell because the oil producers refused to restrict supply in a depressed global economy.

If the government pays me $50.00 an hour to file records and put me on a pension plan, of course I’ll be prosperous. I may go on a shopping spree and help the economy. But where does that money come from?

Why did the federal government offer to help for medicaid? If each state build 20 hospitals and hire thousands of doctors, nurses, administrators, they’ll be all wealthy, right?

“For a long stretch, government spending cutbacks at all levels were a substantial drag on economic growth.”

What trash. Government has nothing, and therefore it can only take FROM the economy, not give TO the economy. At best, government is a blunt instrument for the redistribution of wealth. The price discovery mechanism must be allowed to function, in order to best allocate resources according to the demands of society. Government can never be as good as the market at doing this. I can’t believe some people buy this leftist crap.

i buy almost everything except food and clothing from online auctions most people aren’t aware of the almost I unbelievable deals that they can get from online auction sites the site that has the best deals is…… http://fave.co/14gVp3h

The only thing the government produces that adds actual value to the economy is any research and development that is shared with the private sector.

That’s actual, tangible product or information that can be produced or utilized in producing other products, without using money taken from taxes.

There are many government jobs that are necessary, even vital to the safety and security of the nation. But even they produce nothing at all for the economy.

If you want to see an extreme of wasteful government makework jobs and featherbedding, look up what happened when Mark Zukerberg decided to give $100 million to New Jersey to improve their schools. The money went like pissing on a forest fire and if anything, the schools ended up worse. What makes it especially nasty is the opponents to all the reforms said privately that those reforms were *exactly* what had to be done, but since it wasn’t coming from the unions and Democrat politicians, they fought against everything they knew needed to be done.

Ideally, government produces order, a framework within which we can relate to each other without violence and crime. This is valuable. It is a neutral referee of dealings between different people and organizations. Unfortunately, it seems inevitable that government exceed this role since humans are fallible and corruptible and governments are run by people.

i buy almost everything except food and clothing from online auctions most people aren’t aware of the almost I unbelievable deals that they can get from online auction sites the site that has the best deals is…… http://www.Jobs700.Com

my classmate’s ex-wife makes $81 /hour on the computer . She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her pay check was $18269 just working on the computer for a few hours. check………….. ????? http://www.netjob70.com

Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for 74 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail ———– http://www.paygazette.com

Except for periods in the 1950s and 1960s and possibly the 1990’s when tax rates on the rich just happened to be high enough to prevent overinvestment, the economy has generally suffered from periodic overinvestment cycles.

It is not just a coincidence that tax cuts for the rich have preceded both the 1929 and 2007 depressions. The Revenue acts of 1926 and 1928 worked exactly as the Republican Congresses that pushed them through promised. The dramatic reductions in taxes on the upper income brackets and estates of the wealthy did indeed result in increases in savings and investment. However, overinvestment (by 1929 there were over 600 automobile manufacturing companies in the USA) caused the depression that made the rich, and most everyone else, ultimately much poorer.

Since 1969 there has been a tremendous shift in the tax burdens away from the rich on onto the middle class. Corporate income tax receipts, whose incidence falls entirely on the owners of corporations, were 4% of GDP then and are now less than 1%. During that same period, payroll tax rates as percent of GDP have increased dramatically. The overinvestment problem caused by the reduction in taxes on the wealthy is exacerbated by the increased tax burden on the middle class. While overinvestment creates more factories, housing and shopping centers; higher payroll taxes reduces the purchasing power of middle-class consumers. …”http://seekingalpha.com/article/1543642

Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for 74 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail ———— http://www.paygazette.com